|
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/25/2007 5:19:42 AM
Posts: 332, Visits: 562 |
| ganstaman (4/16/2006)
robnotts (4/10/2006)
As I said there's a mathematical proof, it's not 'my suggestion'. It falls down in real world because the assumptions are unrealistic.I'd really like to see this proof, as its implications are ridiculous. I came across it in a university level 'elementary' probability course book borrowed from a public library. Your reasoning fails, because in Martingale systems the bet size doubles until you are in profit.
-- FToP says everytime you are outdrawn giving the wrong odds, you actually won something! If only the accountants at my Poker Site would agree. Money men think so short term... |
| |
| | | 
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/11/2006 12:55:04 PM
Posts: 109, Visits: 229 |
| | Okay... Just want to give one last example so that everybody is clear. It's going to be really simple and easy to understand. There is no need for calculators, telescopes, microscopes, compasses, computers, pie charts, or any other analytical or number crunching tools. Just use your eyes to transfer data directly to your brain. We have unlimited funds. The table holds no maximum bet. Here we go. We'll start the betting at $5. Bet $5. Lose. That sucks. Now we're down $5. Bet $10. Lose. Dammit! Now we're down $15. Bet $20. Lose. You've gotta be kidding me! Down $35. Bet $40. WIN! Yes! Now we are up $5! Bet $5. Win! Yes! Up $10. -5 -10 -20 +40 = +5 No matter what you want to make the original bet size, if you keep betting double every time you lose, eventually when you win you'll be up one bet unit. There is no way around it. You bet one unit more than your total negative and you will always gain the next time you win. Period. G O N E F O R E V E R |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/3/2008 2:38:40 PM
Posts: 105, Visits: 691 |
| | Ok, so there are two ways for it to be profitable (both assume unlimited funds and no table max): Play until you are up $X, or play forever. If you play for a set number of hours or set number of hands, you are expected to lose. These seem to be the assumptions I had made, and that would be why I reached the conclusion that this system loses money even under the ridiculous assumptions of infinite bankroll and no table max.
"You have to put yourself in position to get lucky."
--Tom McEvoy |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/25/2007 5:19:42 AM
Posts: 332, Visits: 562 |
| | No, under those ridiculous assumptions it works. In real world of finite bankrolls, you are going to go broke eventually. Even recommended bankrolls for Poker, only give you something like 95% prob of not going bust if you're a winning player, with a normal edge over game. Of course most players, can supplement their bankrolls from day job, so they can operate on lower than theoretical advice for Pro's.
-- FToP says everytime you are outdrawn giving the wrong odds, you actually won something! If only the accountants at my Poker Site would agree. Money men think so short term... |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 4/23/2007 1:29:51 PM
Posts: 104, Visits: 147 |
| If the game is made of open sequences it is not possible to beat the game over the long run with any betting structure, as long as there is a house advantage.
Games with open sequences are:
Roulette, Craps, One arm Bandit Lotto.
Games with closed sequences are:
Blackjack dealt hole deck before shuffle
Baccarat dealt hole deck before shuffle
Pokergames are special because the cards you have nobody may have at the same time ;-)
So as funny as it seems it is exactly the same probability to have 10 times in a row 0 on roulette as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 or whatever combination. Because of this fact if you play in these type of games martingal its like you would play xtimes 1Bet ytimes 2Bet... ztimes maxbet.
So this system may fake you that you win over the long time but you will just loose x% of the time each bet you make. Its as you would play very often a 1$ roulette table bit less often 2$, sometimes 3$,... and almost never $max roulette. But because each of these bets have negative expection and are not part of sequence you will lose. It doesnt matter if you bet a lot or not. And which time of your life or roulette spins you play. Sometimes you will lose as high roller and sometimes low.
A beatable game with negative espection would be for example like that:
You need to name the card that will be drawn. If you are right you get .5xtimes your bet otherwise you lose it. If the hole deck is going to be dealt before reshuffle you could martingale it down. And not bet on the cards that allready were dealt.
But the poker game you were talking about seems to me like a game with open sequences and positive house edge. |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/25/2007 5:19:42 AM
Posts: 332, Visits: 562 |
| | The Martingale idea could be applied to Poker. You buy in, short stack, look for a double through opportunity and heave it all in. If you win, and you have more chips than you bought in for, you leave table. When you go broke, you now. Buy in, short stack, at table doubling the stakes, look for a double through... Then if you win, you have recovered your 1st buy in, and made a profit, so you leave. If you lose, no problem, you simply repeat, doubling your buy in at a higher level table. If there were infinite number of games, and you had an infinite bankroll, this strategy would apparently guarantee a profit. It is exploiting variance, by making huge bets, to overcome -ve EV of individual bets. But it fails because the assumptions are ridiculous. When you have +ve EV bets, as a winning poker player, you want to make many relatively small bets, compared to your bankroll, so that your edge over time, slowly grows your bankroll as you begin to see long run, with results matching EV. You should only move up, when your bankroll and skill, means you ahve +ve EV in the higher game.
-- FToP says everytime you are outdrawn giving the wrong odds, you actually won something! If only the accountants at my Poker Site would agree. Money men think so short term... |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 4/23/2007 1:29:51 PM
Posts: 104, Visits: 147 |
| I fully agree robnots.
Just wanted to help understanding the fact that a martingale system doesnt level out the players disadvantage especially when prediction with knowledge of past is not possible. |
| |
|
|